Michael Coote: Submission on the Auckland Unitary Plan

I write concerning the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan
(“D-AUP”) as it relates to policy concerning Maori and Mana Whenua [The people
of the land who have mana or customary authority – their historical, cultural
and genealogical heritage are attached to the land and sea].

Specifically, I am concerned about the Maori racial
supremacy bias that Auckland Council is attempting to embed permanently into
its public policy through D-AUP via Treaty of Waitangi-related clauses of
legislation such as the Resource Management Act and various court decisions,
and through additional political decisions Auckland Council has made off its
own bat.

This bias is particularly evident around, but not limited
to, issues concerning D-AUP 3.3.5.2 Sites of significance to Mana Whenua, of
which more further below, but can be found in other areas such as the
reification of the Maori Stone Age animist superstition of mauri [Life force]
as an objective concept for public policy.

We can follow the primrose path of the racist bias that
threads its way through Auckland Council’s D-AUP’s various sections relating to
Maori and Mana Whenua and terminates in the cash out terms and conditions of
Mana Whenua sites of significance.

Clause 1.2 Mana Whenua recognises no fewer than 19 iwi
authorities in Auckland, who are identified in clause 2.5 Addressing issues of
significance to Mana Whenua as the intended beneficiaries of Auckland Council’s
policy of racial discrimination in favour of Mana Whenua.

Clause 1.2 also reveals that Auckland Council is not
merely seeking to conform with Treaty-related law but has additionally decided
to go far beyond what is legally required in order to innovate and pioneer an
entirely new position of Maori racial dominance in public policy:

As treaty claims are settled, Auckland will move into a
new phase where Mana Whenua aspirations are clearly articulated and empowered.
This creates an opportunity to develop a new approach to resource management
where Mana Whenua are directly involved in the resource management process, and
where tikanga [Customary lore and practice, Maori protocols] and matauranga
Maori [Maori knowledge] shape resource management decisions…

The Unitary Plan has an important role in helping
decision-makers to expand their perspective to include tikanga that are
significant to Mana Whenua and have a bearing on resource management. The
Unitary Plan will provide clear direction that tikanga must be properly
considered in relation to any activity within the rohe [Region, district or
area].

Thus Auckland Council proposes to subject resource
management decisions to Maori dictates in a way that has not been done before
in Auckland and clearly exceeds existing legal requirements despite the word
play in D-AUP calculated to make matters seem otherwise and altogether legally
inevitable.

The Unitary Plan thereby is admitted in D-AUP to be an
instrument for 19 iwi authorities to impose their own artful, cunning, pliable,
anachronistic, superstitious, unscientific, unverifiable, self-serving,
rent-seeking and at times simply invented lore, practices and protocols, or
tikanga, to suit their own best advantagement and exigencies versus all the
other residents and ratepayers of Auckland.

Auckland Council has elected, it seems, to go beyond
meeting its legal obligations in order to stray into ideologically-driven
excesses that facilitate and pander to the desire of Mana Whenua to dominate,
control, influence, direct and profit from the lives of other Aucklanders.

Aucklanders should be very clear about Auckland Council’s
commitment to appeasing Mana Whenua: this appeasement policy is primarily based
on political decisions and only secondarily based on compliance with the law.

Following on from Clause 1.2, clause 2.5 Addressing
issues of significance to Mana Whenua decrees that:

The thrust of this statement is towards the
co-sovereignty Treaty partnership doctrine that acquisitive and domineering
Maori tribes and a sympathetic activist judiciary have been keen to foist on
Parliament but for which there is no justifiable place in the Auckland
Council’s Unitary Plan or for Aucklanders to have to put up with.

The 19 iwi authorities, not content with lucrative full
and final Treaty settlements rolling through, are additionally to be uniquely
empowered by Auckland Council to act in quasi-sovereign ways via the Unitary
Plan, and this cannot be what most Aucklanders would find acceptable from their
local authority that is meant to represent them equally and democratically in
an unbiased way.

Clause 2.5.1 Recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi
partnerships and participation lays the foundation for what will follow in the
Mana Whenua places of significance rort by making Mana Whenua unaccountable to
anyone else in Auckland in stating under Policies that D-AUP, “recognises the
role of kaumatua [One who holds knowledge of tikanga and reo Maori and is
recognised by hapu, iwi or organisation] and pukenga [specialist, expert*]” and
“recognises Mana Whenua as specialists in the tikanga of their hapu or iwi and
as being best placed to convey their relationship with their ancestral lands,
water, sites, wahi tapu [Sacred ancestral sites and places of significance to
iwi, hapu or whanau] and taonga [A treasured item. It can be tangible or
intangible]”.

Clause 2.5.4 Protection of Mana Whenua culture and
heritage leads further into laying the snare of sites of significance to Mana
Whenua, where it states:

Objectives

4. The knowledge
base of Maori cultural heritage in Auckland continues to be developed, giving
priority to areas where there is a higher level of threat to the loss or
degradation of areas, features or sites of significance to Mana Whenua.

Policies

1. Council
will work with Mana Whenua to develop a methodology for identifying,
researching and assessing areas, features and sites of significance to Mana
Whenua that will be nominated for scheduling.

2. Council
and Mana Whenua will identify and record Maori cultural heritage values
associated with the Maori cultural landscape by:

a. developing and using an agreed methodology to
identify, record and assess, map and protect Maori cultural heritage in
accordance with the aspirations of Mana Whenua iwi and hapu

b. identifying and recording Maori cultural and spiritual
values associated with landscapes and features within a spatial context in
accordance with tikanga and matauranga Maori.

Thus Auckland Council commits ratepayers’ resources to
compiling lists of sites that Mana Whenua – in reality 19 iwi authorities and
their subdivisions – want to claim as special to themselves according to their
own political policy-privileged desires.

Clause 2.5.4 Policies then gives a long list of Maori
phrases and translations for a comprehensive wishlist of supposedly special
places and resources:

5. Identify and
protect the values of areas, features and sites of significance to Mana Whenua
using one or more of the following criteria:

The place has special amenity, architectural or
educational significance to Mana Whenua.

This astonishing list can be twisted to mean just about
anything Mana Whenua’s 19 iwi authorities and their tribal subdivisions want it
to mean, and significantly in item (f) can include items of “contemporary
esteem”, which smacks of the ever-expanding elasticity of the “living document”
doctrine concerning the Treaty of Waitangi.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given what has gone before, the
explanation section of clause 2.5.4 states:

The knowledge base of information surrounding Maori
cultural heritage is continually developing and tools that provide a form of
protection and inform subdivision, use and development are increasingly
valuable. Recognition is also given to the right of Mana Whenua to choose not
to identify or schedule areas, features or sites of significance or special
value.

The first sentence quoted above points to the cash out
value of where the doctrine of Mana Whenua significant sites is leading: land
subdivision, use and development.

The second sentence quoted enables Mana Whenua to keep
plenty of potential sites of significance up their sleeves for future
revelation as opportunities arise to profit from them.

The next step in D-AUP is to widen the dragnet for those
authorised to declare sites of significance:

6. Recognise that Mana Whenua are specialists in
determining their values and associations with areas, features or sites of
significance.

7. Recognise that areas, features or sites of
significance to Mana Whenua may be significant to whanau, hapu or iwi.

The impact of these two clauses is to extend and amplify
clause 2.5.1 such that even the smallest group subdivisions of the 19 iwi
authorities can get in on the act of specifying places of significance and that
these entities are a law unto themselves in deciding what should influence
Auckland Council policy and decisions, in particular under the Resource Management
Act.

More sinister still is:

8. Recognise that some information surrounding the values
and associations of a feature may be sensitive and put an area, feature or site
at risk of destruction or degradation, meaning it may not be appropriate to
make it public.

Auckland Council should not be permitting itself to
become involved in keeping secret information from the public concerning why
particular places become significant for Mana Whenua to the extent that this
alleged significance activates the Auckland Unitary Plan’s provisions.

As will be seen below, there are potential costs to
Aucklanders from sites of significance to Mana Whenua, and accordingly
Aucklanders have a right to know why Auckland Council uses their resources to
make particular sites officially significant at the behest of Mana Whenua.

The “risk of destruction or degradation” is likely a red
herring, because the odds are high that in many cases the reasons given by Mana
Whenua for a site to be significant will be outrageous, preposterous,
ridiculous, self-serving and rent-seeking.

A previous example of what might be expected arose when
in June, 2011, Maori Statutory Board member GlennWilcox asked Auckland
Council's transport committee "What's being done about the taniwha Horotiu
who lives just outside here, and that tunnel will be going right through his
rohe?"

It is that sort of Stone Age revivalist drivel that will
need to be kept secret from the public if Auckland Council and Mana Whenua are
to get away with the intended scale and extent of the significant sites policy.

An apparently innocuous statement in clause 3.1.2
Policies 12 will be revealed to have critical significance under clause 3.1.3
Information management:

12. Recognise that information may be held in various
forms and may be in Te Reo Maori in accordance with the tikanga of the iwi or
hapu.

Once again, Auckland Council attempts to use the
smokescreen of compliance with the law, when in explanation of the foregoing
farrago of Clause 2.5.4 nonsense it states:

“Council has a statutory responsibility, through Part 2
of the RMA, to protect Maori cultural heritage from inappropriate subdivision,
use and development. These policies also recognise this along with council’s
responsibilities under the NZCPS (Objective 3, Policies 2 and 15) to employ a
collaborative approach with Mana Whenua, working in accordance with tikanga to
identify, assess, protect and manage Maori cultural landscapes and areas,
features or sites of significance to Mana Whenua.”

It is quite apparent from comparing this deceptively
bland statement of legal compliance with what has gone before in clause 2.5.4
that Auckland Council is going far beyond simply meeting its legal obligations
with its Mana Whenua policies in D-AUP, but is trying to cover up and smooth
over the extent of its deviation.

On to clause 3.1.2, where the true grandiose scale and
extent of the Mana Whenua significant sites policy begins to be revealed:

Where sufficient information exists on the location and
values of sites, the Unitary Plan can afford protection through scheduling of
sites through the Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua overlay. Scheduling
offers the greatest protection through the Unitary Plan, as a significant
amount of research is required to provide a robust basis for scheduling these
sites.

Despite a large number of Mana Whenua groups having a
strong association with the Auckland area, within Auckland very few sites have
been scheduled. The lack of scheduling may be due to a number of reasons
including the sensitivity of the information surrounding the protection of the
site, and the reluctance of Mana Whenua to make this information available in a
public document.

There are thousands of areas, features and sites within
Auckland where there is a high likelihood of Maori cultural heritage being
discovered or affected. It is important that there are robust processes to
ensure that the values associated with areas, features and sites that are not
scheduled are also appropriately recognised and managed.

And further:

“Mana Whenua have the right to choose not to identify
places or values of historic, cultural or spiritual significance or special
value. Further work will be undertaken with Mana Whenua to formally review and
consider the most appropriate method to protect these areas, features and sites
to achieve Mana Whenua aspirations.”

Accordingly, Auckland Council will work with Mana Whenua
not just on formally scheduled sites of significance, but on secret sites as
well, and of course, these unidentified places of significance can be
identified – or invented – whenever it suits Mana Whenua.

And further still:

“Maori cultural landscapes (areas of significance to Mana
Whenua)

Maori cultural heritage extends beyond individual sites
of significance and includes wider ‘areas’ of historic occupation, where Mana
Whenua values and associations with the landscape are reflected through
landmarks, place names, portages, areas of seasonal occupation and historical
transport routes that are also of importance to Mana Whenua.

Mana Whenua liken their cultural landscape to their
cultural footprint/tapuwae – which is of Maori cultural heritage in its own
right. It is not site-specific; rather it is the context of the landscape, the
volcanic maunga fields, and the numerous waterways and tributaries overlaid by
layers of Maori history. Maori cultural landscapes provide the context and
identify relationships within which areas, features and sites of significance
to Mana Whenua exist, recognising that sites do not exist in isolation. It is
important that Mana Whenua values and associations present in the landscape are
retained so that future generations can pass on traditional skills and knowledge.
In some cases, protection is appropriate for areas, features and sites that are
important to the wider Maori community and not specifically for their
significance to Mana Whenua.”

Thus Auckland Council widens the scope from sites of
significance – potentially thousands of them – to whole areas of significance,
and the relevance not just to Mana Whenua, but to Maori in general.

The dubious quality of information that would justify
claiming the genuine existence of Mana Whenua sites of significance is exposed
in the following passage from clause 3.1.2:

Information management

Maori knowledge is traditionally passed down orally from
one generation to the next. Tohunga [Expert, specialist] and kaumatua are
repositories of knowledge and are highly regarded for their knowledge of the
spiritual and physical realms. These customs are still commonplace in Maori
culture and it is important that sensitive information is managed in accordance
with protocols that have been agreed with Mana Whenua.

At this point, it is reasonable for Aucklanders to think
that the D-AUP represents pure madness, in that the entire edifice of Mana
Whenua claims over sites and areas of significance turns out to be founded not
on objective science or empirical facts but on the say-so of unaccountable
tohunga and kaumatua concerning spiritual and physical realms, and in
accordance with rules set down by the 19 iwi authorities of Manawa Whenua, but
there is even more to come in D-AUP.

Sooner or later there has to be a cash out value to Mana
Whenua from this effective carpet bombing of the Auckland region with actual or
potential, real or imagined, and spiritual, physical or metaphysical sites of
significance.

We already know from clause 2.5.4 that land subdivision,
use and development in Auckland is the true target.

Clause 3.1.2 ends in a crescendo with a detailed roll
call for legalised looting of Aucklanders that is worth quoting in full:

Objectives

1. The relationship of Mana Whenua with their unscheduled
areas, features and sites of significance is recognised and provided for. 2. The tangible and intangible values and associations of
Mana Whenua with their cultural landscapes and Maori cultural heritage are
recognised, protected and enhanced.

Policies

1. The
council and Mana Whenua will:

a) develop a
methodology for recognising, enhancing and protecting Maori cultural
landscapes, giving priority to the coastal environment and areas where there is
a higher level of threat to the loss or degradation of areas, features or sites
of significance to Mana Whenua

b) identify areas of known Maori
cultural heritage in the Maori cultural heritage alert layer for guidance on
matters to be considered in preparing resource consents, assessment and
regulatory decision-making.

2. Require a
cultural impact assessment where:

a) development
is proposed in an identified Maori cultural landscape

b) Maori
cultural heritage is present or there is high likelihood of Maori cultural
heritage being present.

3. Manage the
impact on areas, features or sites of significance to Mana Whenua that are
discovered during development or land use by:

a) requiring a
protocol for the accidental discovery of koiwi, archaeology and artefacts of
Maori origin

5. In
determining the type and extent of mitigation, consider the relationship of the
site of significance with its surrounds, through the incorporation of:

a) the design
of proposed structures

b) landscaping
and vegetation including removal and replanting

c) landform
modification.

The above list taken from the D-AUP can justly be
interpreted as a license to loot Aucklanders, especially when aligned with
2.5.4 Policies 5 above, the bizarre wishlist, replete with mystical mumbo
jumbo, of what constitutes the reasons for declaring a site to have Mana Whenua
significance, and the Information management section of clause 3.1.2.

It is, of course, subdivision, use and development with
all its potentially remunerative opportunities that would most attract claims
of significant sites for Mana Whenua , whether publicly scheduled or secretly
agreed with Auckland Council, and here the D-AUP does not let Mana Whenua down.

Thus we come to the main point and purpose of the Mana
Whenua sites of significance doctrine when we reach, under 3.3 Overlay
objectives and policies Clause 3.3.5 Mana Whenua.

The critical passage, prepared by all that has gone
before in the passages analysed above and others not included here is clause
3.3.5.2 Sites of significance to Mana Whenua.

Of the overlay Sites of significance to Mana Whenua we
learn:

“Overlay description

“The Sites of significance to Mana Whenua overlay
identifies areas, features and sites that have been scheduled and protected for
their Maori values. Where there is sensitive information regarding the
significance of the sites special protocols agreed with Mana Whenua will
outline the management of this information.

“Mana Whenua are aware of many other areas, features and
sites that may be equally or more significant, and acknowledge there may be
shared interests over scheduled locations. It is intended to identify further
areas, features and sites nominated by Mana Whenua through future plan changes
including those identified through other legislation.”

The “many other areas, features and sites that may be
equally or more significant” have already been elsewhere quantified in clause
3.1.2 which states, “There are thousands of areas, features and sites within
Auckland where there is a high likelihood of Maori cultural heritage being
discovered or affected.”

Once more, it is worth quoting in full what lies in wait
for Aucklanders under the pernicious doctrine of Mana Whenua sites of
significance, which are supposed to exist across Auckland in their thousands:

Objective

1. The
tangible and intangible values of scheduled sites and features of significance
to Mana Whenua are protected and enhanced.

Policies

1. Avoid
adverse effects on the values of scheduled areas, features and sites of
significance to Mana Whenua.

2. Require
subdivision, use and development to:

a) enhance the
values of the area, feature or site of significance and the relationship of
Mana Whenua with their taonga, commensurate with the scale and nature of the
planning application

c) incorporate
the outcomes articulated by Mana Whenua through consultation and within iwi
planning documents

d) demonstrate
consideration of practicable alternative methods, locations or designs which
would avoid or reduce the impact on the values of sites of significance to Mana
Whenua

e) include
mitigation that is compatible with Mana Whenua values and is commensurate with
the extent of the effects

f) encourage
preservation of the area, feature or site and its values

g) demonstrate
consideration of practical mechanisms to maintain or enhance the ability to
access and use the area, feature, site for karakia [A ritual recitation often
used to open and close meetings], monitoring, customary purposes and ahika roa
[burning fires of occupation – title to land through occupation by a group,
generally over a long period of time.
The group is able, through the use of whakapapa, to trace back to
primary ancestors who lived on the land*] by Mana Whenua

h) avoid:

i. excavation
or earthworks near a scheduled site

ii. the use of
areas, features and sites of significance to Mana Whenua for infrastructure.

3.
Demonstrate a proposed construction methodology that includes:

a) the location
of equipment and construction materials including soil and vegetation

b) the duration
and timing of works.

4. Reflect
the relationship of the site of significance with its surrounds through the
incorporation of:

a) the design
of proposed structures

b) landscaping
and vegetation including removal and replanting

c) landform
modification

d) maintenance
of view shafts to and between sites of significance to Mana Whenua.

5. Whether
the proposed activity is appropriate considering the nature of the site of
significance and the associated values.

6. Manage
subdivision so that areas, features or sites of significance to Mana Whenua are
not split into multiple land parcels.

With clause 3.3.5.2 we come to the culmination of
Auckland Council’s labours in the service of Maori racial supremacy through
clauses 1.2, 2.5, 3.1 and their subclauses.

When the scattered D-AUP Mana Whenua clauses related to
sites of significance are strung together in sequence, as has been done above,
it becomes all too apparent how unworkable Auckland Council has made the D-AUP
in the cause of its innovations, appeasements and overcompensations granted to
Mana Whenua, whom it admits are in the process of receiving all their Treaty
settlements.

Once these settlements are made, Mana Whenua could just
get on with life like anybody else in Auckland, but apparently this would sell
them short, especially when Auckland Council is eager to grant to Mana Whenua
ownership of a veritable Auckland-wide industry dedicated to ticket-clipping,
rent-seeking, danegelding and legalised corruption, imposed on land developers,
occupiers, residents and ratepayers under the guise of iwi consultation and
involvement over sites of significance.

It is nothing short of appalling and unconscionable that
Auckland Council could advance Maori racial supremacy policies that, if
implemented through the Auckland Unitary Plan, would lead inevitably to
insecurity of property ownership all over Auckland, with lack of natural justice,
any right of appeal, or any other legal redress for Aucklanders who were not
Mana Whenua.

There is more that is bad and indeed outright evil in
D-AUP relating to racist promotion of Mana Whenua over other Auckland residents
and ratepayers.

For example, D-AUP 2.5.2 leads into mysticism when it
claims to bind the Unitary Plan in respect of the natural environment with the
amorphous and irrational superstition of mauri, an antiquated relic of Maori
animism that is of no use or relevance in the scientific management of natural
resources.

Much of D-AUP as it pertains to Maori and Mana Whenua is
deceptive and misleading to the disdavantagement of all other Aucklanders.

In summary, Aucklanders can have no confidence in the
D-AUP or Auckland Council when a racist agenda is being promoted to benefit
Mana Whenua through legalised scams and corruption such as the policy of sites
of significance to Mana Whenua represents, not to mention the confession of
Auckland Council in D-AUP that it is going beyond strict legal obligations in
innovating and pioneering policies that profit and privilege 19 iwi authorities
and their members above all other Aucklanders.

Aucklanders rightly expect better from their local
authority in that it should exercise good stewardship, act in good faith,
respect equality and democracy, protect property ownership rights, and
generally promote the best interests of all Aucklanders, and not just single
out a racial minority for exclusive enjoyment of superior privilege,
advancement, and unaccountable powers.

In fine, the entire Treaty of Waitangi, Maori, and Mana
Whenua policy of Auckland Council as expressed in D-AUP is a disgrace, a
shambles, and a force for insecurity of property ownership throughout Auckland.

This politicised policy must be withdrawn and rewritten
such that it can be acceptable to Aucklanders taken as a whole, and not just
pleasing to Mana Whenua, nor expedient for Auckland Council politicians and
bureaucrats eager to appease, reward and curry favour with 19 local iwi authorities
at the expense of all the other Aucklanders they are also bound to serve.

Note: English translations for Maori words used in
quotations from D-AUP have been given in square brackets [] and derived from
D-AUP Definitions, Maori Terms, except for those marked with an asterisk*. Those marked with an asterisk* were not
defined in D-AUP Definitions, Maori Terms and instead were quoted from the
Maori Dictionary at www.maoridictionary.co.nz.

Michael,You have done an excellent job of analysing the ‘Issues of significance to Mana Whenua’ content of the draft AUP. I have read through the related clauses, and am gobsmacked by the extent of the race based rights this document promotes. I fear that unless the citizens of Auckland come down on this like a tonne of bricks, they are going to wake up one day and wonder what happened to their rights.

Michael,Thank you for highlighting yet another set of potential rortes.Some thoughts. Could you send the same letter to each individual Auckland City Councillor? Will you publish any replies that you receive? I would like to know which councilors are in favour of the undemocratic Mana Whenua proposals in the draft AUP and which councilors are pro upholding the rights of all ratepayers regardless of ethnicity.

Excellent analysis.But why all this kowtowing to Maori by the Auckland Council. Reason would imply that this Unitary Plan will lay the FUTURE seeds of a discontent that will eventually ferment into revolution.

So we should ask "Just what is behind this Unitary Plan," and also, just what is the reason behind all these Treaty settlements really about? How much further down the pathway of separation will we go to pacify the God of Appeasement.

We should look beyond our national borders and national interests for the answer. Ever since the Maori gravy train of extorting money on ethnic grounds became established; we have seen a complete capitulation by successive governments.

So why.? New Zealand with its compliant, apathetic population has provided an excellent seedbed for the United Nations. They have been able to use a guinea pig acquiescent country as a field of righting Indigenous Rights.

Within a few years we will be held up as an example to the World. One can almost feel the basking self righteous content of our Politicians as they strut upon the United Nations stage of Multiculturalism.

This article should be posted on YouTube to gain an audience that it will not reach from just posting on this site.There are people who will watch a video but never read an article of such depth and insight.

Michael, you have done us Aucklanders a great service with this analysis - is there a chance this could appear as a full page feature contribution in the Herald? It needs wide exposure to an unsuspecting public.

Thanks Michael. You have highlighted the skill of a cultural self interest group in gaining control by very indirect means over the resources of others without risk, investment, good reason, or firing a shot, simply by way of protecting extreme aspects of a largely superseded culture and beliefs. Only in NZ could a majority of people be so conned, lead by those on obscene hourly rates with a vested interest in furthering the extremists claims. No wonder so many good Maori have emigrated to Australia, and so many of our young too.

MichaelJust found your earlier comments on PAUP. An excellent summary and was wondering if you know of or have perhaps have participated in a collective submission that I could support. It is a very complex issue and reflects outrageous behaviour by this Council.

Michael. Thank you so much for your article, it has allowed me to actually believe something that I only suspected, and was uneasy about, like I am about most of these treaty type processes. I hope you can get this to a wider audience, as every person living in this country should read this before others try to enshrine this policy into NZ law. Many thanks again. Brian

Post a Comment

Thanks for engaging in the debate!

Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.

Please note - if you use the new REPLY button for comments, please start your comments AFTER the code. Also, the Blogger comment limit is 4,096 characters, so to post something longer, you may wish to use Part 1, Part 2 etc.

Subscribe To

Welcome to Breaking Views

Breaking Views brings you expert commentary on topical political and policy issues. The views expressed are those of the author alone. The blog is administered by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, an independent public policy think tank at NZCPR.com - register for the free weekly NZCPR newsletterHERE.